Access funding obliterated

[Ben Lamb]

The Interior Subcommittee of the House Appropriations committee is pursuing a budget that eliminates funding for the Land & Water Conservation Fund and a ton of other good projects while cutting the overall US Fish and Widlife Services budget by 27%. That's a 34% decrease in spending since FY2010.

Other programs zeroed out:
State Wildlife Grants (Keeps species off the Endangered Species list)
North American Wetlands Conservation Act (Want ducks? This is your program)
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (locals deciding how to manage lands)
Eliminates funding for New Wildlife Refuges and expansions of existing ones

This is ridiculous. Programs like LWCF are used heavily by groups like RMEF and others to leverage their dollars and increase their effectiveness. LWCF funds paid for over 70% of fishing access sites in Montana. The number is similar for other states. LWCF is funded from royalties from offshore mineral leasing and does not come out of the General Fund. It's essentially budget neutral and actually means that we live up to the old motto of conserving the best and developing the rest.

Contact the Committee here and let your voice be heard.

https://appropriations.house.gov/contact/contactform.htm

 

[Big Fin]

This is some of the worst politics I have seen in a long time. For those of you not familiar with LWCF (Land and Water Conservation Fund), here is how it has funded much of the hunting access and fishing access sites we enjoy in the west.

In 1965, Congress opened up areas to off shore drilling. Many people were worried of the impacts that activity would have on habitat, wetlands, fisheries, and wildlife. A deal was struck to allay the worries of anglers, hunters, and those concerned about the impacts that could happen.

The deal was this - A very small percentage royalty would be paid into this new fund, the LWCF fund. The money was earmarked for on shore land and water access. That worked pretty good, until recently, when Congress started diverting the money to other programs.

Now, they want to continue collecting the royalties, but change the deal that was negotiated almost 50 years ago by completely gutting any authorization for spending this money on its intended purpose. Not that any of us are surprised by such actions when mentioned in the context of Congressional action. But, I am fed up with Congress not have the stones to fix their problems, rather repaying political favors with money that was earmarked for this kind of stuff.

Hell, if they are going to divert the funds to repay special favors and screw over the hunters and anglers, get rid of the royalty tax and let the companies keep the money.

People who negotiated this kind of legislation didn't fight on our behalf just so Congress could spend it on a new experiment that serves some personal agenda by a newly elected member. People negotiated and compromised because they saw long-term value in the trade offs being made/accepted. Now, they want to lay the pipe to us.

If you want to continue to have this money used for the purpose it was intended, I suggest you hit the link in Ben's post and let them know how you feel.

What's next, they gonna take our Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson excise tax money and spend that on aid to foreign countries?

I am using my most polite words for this post. Words that explain how I really feel about this would not be printable. Mrs. Fin would have to act as moderator and delete my post.

Just in my back yard, I can list hundreds of thousands of acres that have been made accessible to the public, hunters, hiker, bikers, all of us, by use of the funds this long-standing program has generated. Royal Teton. Spotted Dog, Taylor Fork, Gallatin I and Gallatin II Land Exchanges, Plumb Creek acquisition, almost every fishing access site in Montana.

I need to find a map of the programs that have been funded with LWCF. It is the "best of the best" hunting and fishing access. I am sure that no matter the state where you live, no matter where you hunt, hike, or fish, you have benefited from this great program.

Really guys, I am not making this up. There has never been a program with such long-term support and such a great track record for increasing access as has been the LWCF program. I ask all hunters to learn what LWCF stands for and how important it is to your hunting and fishing access.

Let 'em have it boys.


https://appropriations.house.gov/contact/contactform.htm

Idgits. Damn idgits.

 

[jryoung]

File this under "you gotta be fuggin' kidding me"

 

[shoots-straight]

Done, and it didn't hurt at all.

 

[theat]

Email sent....who comes up with this #@$%&^!

 

[Paul in Idaho]

:MAD

3 LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
4 (RESCISSION)
5 The contract authority provided for fiscal year 2014
6 by section 9 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
7 Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l–10a) is rescinded.

from page 14 of http://appropriations.house.gov/upl...r-sc-ap-fy2014-interior-subcommitteedraft.pdf

http://www.ducks.org/conservation/p...-bill-zeros-out-conservation-programs?poe=rss

http://www.iwla.org/index.php?ht=d/sp/i/17764/pid/17764/cat_id/574

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/07/out...pply-common-sense-to-interior-appropriations/

More at:

https://www.google.com/search?q=hou...ation&hs=2Y&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:m&sa=X

 

[Ben Lamb]

.


I need to find a map of the programs that have been funded with LWCF. It is the "best of the best" hunting and fishing access. I am sure that no matter the state where you live, no matter where you hunt, hike, or fish, you have benefited from this great program.


https://appropriations.house.gov/contact/contactform.htm

Idgits. Damn idgits.

Here's a start: Select the LWCF Layer on the map and it will show a few (there are literally thousands of projects in MT) that are fairly decent opportunities for sportsmen.

http://map.mtbullypulpit.org/

 

[HSi-ESi]

That is a really cool map.

Comments sent in.

 

[Ben Lamb]

That is a really cool map.

Comments sent in.

Thanks! It's been a fun project to work on. We're looking to add a pronghorn district layer and update with the new BMA's in the next few weeks.

From Outdoor Life: http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/op...l-will-cut-funding-many-conservation-programs

Thanks for stepping up guys. Keep those comments coming.

 

[Big Fin]

Great column, Ben. Hope guys hammer this committee and let them know what a stupid plan they have put forward.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks Randy.

It's not a bad idea to contact your congressman or woman as well. If you don't know who that is, you can find out here: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

This is our money. We want it back.

 

[Sawtooth]

Ben,
Thanks for the heads up. More than happy to send them my views on their proposed budget. Sure getting tired of the "bait and switch" tactics that both sides of the Congressional aisle are willing to try and sneak by the public in order to fund their hidden agendas.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben,
Thanks for the heads up. More than happy to send them my views on their proposed budget. Sure getting tired of the "bait and switch" tactics that both sides of the Congressional aisle are willing to try and sneak by the public in order to fund their hidden agendas.

Amen. Hit 'em hard boys.

 

[Redwood]

I sent my letter. Takes no time at all, this requires voices in volume folks. Nice map by the way, interesting to see.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks Redwood!

Remember to send emails to your sitting members of Congress too.

 

[LopeHunter]

I am 100% for fighting to save this funding. A question for us, though. Are we entitled to this funding?

In the end, our country borrows money to pay the bills and that is not healthy. China funds a significant portion of our borrowing. Something has to be cut or our debt rises. Is unsustainable at some point when the interest due exceeds our ability to pay. Then China will start explaining to us how it will play out.

Anyone who has gotten into trouble with a credit card or lifestyle beyond their earnings understands the danger of overspending.

Solid programs may need to wither or be eliminated as more and more of the budget is consumed by debt payments.

My pet project is another man's wasteful spending.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think those are incredibly valid points Lopehunter.

1.) LWCF funding comes from offshore oil and gas leasing revenue. It is not borrowed money. In fact, there's almost $19 billion sitting in an account that was supposed to go to LWCF, but was not appropriated. Just left to sit.

2.) It is important to look at Return on Investment when we look at any program. NAWCA, for example has about a 4:1 ROI when we look at other dollars brought to the table for increasing wetlands and restoring waterfowl habitat. We also have to look at the other tangible benefits of this program, such as decreased flood risk, decreased soil erosion, increased efficiencies in municipal water treatment plants due to fewer toxins coming into municipal water supplies, etc.

3.) Having locals work with federal land managers helps ensure that projects underway help ensure future productivity of all who use federal lands, be they livestock producers or hunters. It's a case of spending a little money now to save big money later.

4.) Same thing goes for the State Wildlife Grants. When we work to conserve a species like the sage grouse now, rather than after they get listed under the ESA, we continue to graze, drill, mine, hunt, fish, etc on public lands. When the ESA is applied, there can be a significant loss of economic opportunity.

Just some thoughts on a very good post.

 

[Ben Lamb]

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/county/article_42b3ae60-f80a-11e2-a55b-001a4bcf887a.html